-
WalkingDead posted an update 6 years, 11 months ago
Food for thought:
A law that is unconstitutional and violates due process.. VIS COMPULSIVA
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 “If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Marbury v. Madison if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (111 pages); — Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege
SHUTTLESWORTH V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 373 U. S. 262 (1963): “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431 a statute that regulates without constitutional authority is a nullity even though it be published in the books, recognized by the police and lowers courts, and even though it be unchallenged for decades.
Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.”
Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”
Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 .” Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away.
Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.“And finally, the government has no duty to protect you/me/us.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, (2005) United States Supreme Court the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
The Giza Forum (Legacy)
Closed Archive of The Old Forum
.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Lotta key words here:
State or Territory or the District of Columbia, citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
USCode = UCC, Statutes are not CONstitutional law. It is Maritime/Contract law.
This is what’s nullified the Constitution/BOR.
I’m the Gomer Pyle of Gizar’s here. @Freefall gave me some excellent links…the ones I clicked, I already knew, so I thought I was reinventing the wheel. He screamed at me in all caps, so I blew it off for a couple of days, then went back. IT’S A GOLDMINE of info. There’s a way to extricate yourself from this Beast System, but it’s not easy…so I’ll leave you w/Fruit From a Poisonous Tree by Mel Stamper JD., YT’s, Frank O’Collins, Justinian Deception, The GLOSSA channel. Start at the bottom of the last 2.
It all starts w/your birth/berth certificate. You were not “birthed” you were born. You are a vessel lost at sea. There plays popey’s Ceste Cui Vie Trust. You have until age 70 to make your claim. After that popey gets it all.
You must claim yourself as living in America/XXX state, not the USSA inc. Not the State of, but XXX state. It’s corporate grammar skullduggery.
Now if you don’t believe that, go to the SEC website & search. These are corporate entities w/DUNS numbers. Australia is incorporated in the USSA.
So when you vote, you are voting a proxy for a corporate officer. They don’t represent you. Only the corporation.
Until you claim it, they own your DNA. Your hide has been re-hypothecated to high heaven w/each tether to the system.
If you want to know the web you’re ensnared in, by numerous tethers, start w/Justinian Deception then GLOSSA.
Get a Black’s Law dictionary (4th edition) & Chicago Style Manual.
Words in legalese don’t mean what you think…especially when you dig into the synonyms.
For added measure, for those that still write checks…get you a good magnifying glass & read the “fine print” where you sign your name.
Whodathunk.
Yep, already been down that rabbit hole. Try to convince your friends of any of this and see how far you get. Better yet, try to convince any officer of the law, judge, lawyer, government official, etc. and see how far you get. I’m willing to bet that you would have an extremely hard time of convincing people on GDS of this, even though they are of above average intelligence and more apt to listen to your case. The minute you extricate yourself from this system, you become a target and your days are numbered. The state is very efficient at eliminating such problems in a multitude of ways.
One person cannot go against the system and win, it will take all of us to do so; and most people are so helplessly caught within the system, outright ignorant, and apathetic it will never happen. From what I have been able to discover, so far, no one has figured out exactly how to do it and remain free and alive on their own and even small groups who have went against this system don’t last long.
While it is true, they were obliged to offer a way to extricate yourself from this system, it doesn’t mean they will allow you to do so.
We’re multi-vectored targets anyway, genocide being the goal.
Yes, they can & will make it worse regardless.
Silence is consent…some folks have been successful with it, of course not w/o threats.
Couldn’t agree more on folks being apathetic.
When it comes to being ignorant on a variety of factors that are visible & in your face, once pointed out, it’s the ignorant that are the easiest to make aware. The Phd’s in multiple fields I know can’t get past the education indoctrination.
Cal Washington was successful in getting his smart meter removed with a notice of liability.
It’s knowing how to play their game by “dishonoring” the judge.
Who said there’s no honor among thieves?
Mosey on down to section IV.
It’s their deception w/remedy spelled out.
“With Interest.”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11
1933…need to dig up FDR of Dutch nobility stock & shoot him.